Slashdot Mirror
CFLs Causing Utility Woes
dacut writes "We've seen compact fluorescent lamps start to take over shelf space at the local hardware store. Replacing a 60 watt incandescent with a 13 watt CFL seems like a great savings, though many consumers are disappointed with the slow warm-up times, lower-than-advertised lifetimes, and hassles of disposing the mercury-containing bulbs. Now EDN reports they may use more energy than claimed due to their poor power factor. Mike Grather, of Lumenaire Testing Laboratory, 'checked the power factor for the CFLs and found they ranged from .45 to .50. Their "real" load was about twice that implied by their wattage.' The good news: you're only billed for the 13 watts of real power used. The bad news: the utilities have to generate the equivalent of 28 watts (that is, 28 VA of apparent power for you EEs out there) to light that bulb. Until they fix these issues, I'll hold on to my incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks."
Since I have switched to CFL... none of my light bulbs has ever burned out yet for 9+ months. With incandescents, I was changing 5-6 light-bulbs a month (I live in an older house, the electric grid and the wiring in the place I live is not always ideal for traditional light bulbs)
The headline convinced me that the Canadian Football League was causing woe....
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
it makes it easy on the eyes - allows them to adjust.
Only if you have a conscience.
28 60, so still a good power savings. Plus, all of the CFL's I've bought in the last year don't have the same warmup problems that most of the early models had. They're not quite instant-on, but that's ok with me; I like that my bedside light comes on slowly in the morning, it's less of a shock to my eyes.
Time for slightly more expensive bulbs then. It's not like PF correction is particularly hard, it just costs a couple bucks a bulb. My datacenter UPS's report a demand side load factor of .91 and that includes a fairly large amount of load with no PF correction.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I'm an electrical engineer and I've been saying this for years. To bad I always get modded a troll for doing so.
'Impossible' is a word that humans use far too often. -- Seven of Nine
Yes, they may consume more than they advertise, but they still consume half the power of the incandescent bulb they are replacing.
Interesting - this is a pretty serious blow to the CFL concept, and if they're really that bad, I'm surprised why it's taken this long for it to come up. Maybe it's fixable but I doubt it could be done without adding significant cost to the bulbs.
A mechanical analogy to help you understand power factor: say you have a weight on the end of a wooden stick. You lift the stick up and down and the weight moves. You are transferring energy efficiently. Now change the stick to a spring. You can still move the weight up and down but it moves a lot less for a given amplitude. Now it may seem that no energy is lost because the spring is returning the energy to the source on each cycle, but in fact it is being lost because of the resistance in the distribution line. The loss is incurred by the power company even if it doesn't appear on your meter.
Power factor is the reason UPSes are rated in volt-amps instead of watts. Switching power supplies usually have power factors significantly less than 1.0, so it's the VA that matters.
The utility does not have to *generate* the 28W of "real" power. It just
has to *transmit* it (and typically only from the local transformer to the
customer, since phase changes can be handled using capacitors when the voltage
is down-coverted the last time).
The
fuck it, shoot 'em all and let God sort it out.
Wang dang, sweet poontang.
CFLs wattage is significantly less than half of incadecent wattage. So, while this is an additional plus for LED lighting, this is still the most economical solution available otherwise.
In any case, regular florescent lighting was in use for decades and nobody found it less efficient than any alternative.
It's been a while since I was in electrical theory classes, but doesn't a 13 watt CFL lamp consuming 28VA of power still consume less power than a 60W incandescent bulb?
28W less than 60W ??? I would hope so or I need to start studying new math.
greed@All_Evils:~#
28 Watts of "Apparent Power" (CFL) versus 50-100 Watts of real power. (Incandescent) Help me understand how we are still not getting a net gain, and why I should care about this?
Is it:
A. I'm saving money at the expense of the power grid.
B. I'm still using at least 50% less wattage than I was before.
C. My lights never burn out anymore, and my only major worry is taking care not to break the reasonably tough bulbs since they contain mercury.
To counter CFL lamps (Inductive load) one can easily use a reactive load to counter the imbalance... this is a non issue so move along... nothing so see here... and so on.
So because a 13W light really uses 28W you are going to stick with a lights that uses even more?
Great logic.......
Even with these issues they are still cheaper in the long run....
The lifetime advertising stuff is really a non-issue, 'old-style' bulbs have the same advertising problems.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
If they had just gone with Edison's DC instead of that dope Tesla's AC, this would not be a problem.
Besides, AC is far more dangerous than DC. There's a reason why they use it in electric chairs.
Now let's see, who disagrees with me?
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The utilities might not like to carry the extra amps on their lines, but that isn't the same as them having to generate more power.
You are absolutely wrong. The additional current increases the resistive losses on the transmission lines. Hence for a lower power factor, more energy must be generated to deliver a given amount of watts.
For some reason, my skin looks, I don't know, pale green under CFLs. I'm sticking with incandescent lights in my bachelor pad. Can't look bad in front of the ladies...
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I think have a great idea as to how to solve this.
But unfortunately I'm still waiting for the CFL bulb above my head to light up.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
So the least expensive item is more environmentally friendly. Who could have known?!
If I read the article right all it says is that the 13W CFLs actually use more than twice that. This is due to their design in how they are powered. So a 13W CFL may actually use 28W. It's been a few years since I've been in school but the math they taught me back then was 60W > 28W. Sure you're not saving as much energy as you thought but the CFL is using half as much energy as your incandescent. Or is their a new fangled math I don't know about? And get off my lawn.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Due to energy stored in the load and returned to the source, or due to a non-linear load that distorts the wave shape of the current drawn from the source, the apparent power can be greater than the real power. In an electric power system, a load with low power factor draws more current than a load with a high power factor for the same amount of useful power transferred.
FTFS: .45 to .50. Their "real" load was about twice that implied by their wattage.'
the power factor for the CFLs and found they ranged from
But the real power is never greater than the apparent power, so there is something very screwy in the summary. Probably the summary meant the "apparent" load was twice that implied by their wattage. That is, if you actually measured the volts time current flowing, you'd find it to be 28 VA, but for whatever reason, it only "uses" 13 "real watts."
Currently hooked on AMP
Funny, I learned about the power factor problem of CFLs back when I was in high school, at least 10 years ago.
I thought the problem was solved since then, seeing how CFLs are taking over.
Huh, guess I was wrong, and it was just that the economics had overtaking the "minor technical problems" ...
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Compact Fluorescents are only a temporary solution until we get cost-effective LED light bulbs. They are available now (even at Costco). Which means pretty soon they should actually make sense to use. Right now, they are still a little pricey, despite lasting 30 times longer than incandescents. Plus, those "environmentally friendly" CFLs contain mercury... just what we need more of in our landfills!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Another thing I don't like about the CFL swirls-they always seem to exaggerate their comparative lighting power in watts. I don't mind waiting a couple of seconds for bulbs, but when they print "replaces 60 watts" on their label they'd better damn well be as bright as a 60 watt bulb. Either I'm getting cataracts, or the manufacturers grossly exaggerate the efficiency.
Oh and BTW, CRTs are still better than LCDs for watching TV...color and motion are far better.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
now THAT would be cool. probably prohibitively expensive, though. I don't mean an actual OLED HDTV the size of your wall (yet) I just mean ambient lighting via OLED. I'd do all my ceilings with soft white, and use spot lighting or individual lamps for reading or accents.
More music, fewer hits
He is wrong; but the summary is also wrong: "The bad news: the utilities have to generate the equivalent of 28 watts" is not correct. As you say, 13 watts consumed + transmission losses on ~28VA means more energy than does 13 watts consumed +transmission losses on ~13VA. TFS, though, seems to be under the impression that apparent power is 100% consumed, rather than just subject to transmission losses.
> slow warm-up times
I have several bulbs at home I've never really paid attention to the 'warm-up times' problem. It could be a matter of the 'gold plated audio cables' syndrome where 99.9% of the population can't tell the difference and don't give a damn, but obviously the article poster has a rant to unleash.
> lower-than-advertised lifetimes
There will always be bulbs that fall below the standard estimated lifetime, so I don't know if this is just a matter of standard failure rates deviation, or a blatant lie by manufacturers. As for me, I've never had a dead CFL yet (several years of casual use), so here's hoping...
> hassles of disposing the mercury-containing bulbs
See last point
Bye!
For some reason, my skin looks, I don't know, pale green under CFLs.
It's because you have pale green skin.
(cf. "Does this skirt make my backside look big?" "No, having a big backside makes it look big.")
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
If the customer is only billed for the 13 "real" watts used per the summary, then this is a non-issue. I paid for a 13 watt bulb advertising $x in saving on my electric bill, and I get $x in saving on my electric bill. I make my purchasing decisions based on the cost to me, not on the cost to the power company.
As someone who teaches physics for a living, the Slashdot summary is making my eyes bleed.
Now EDN reports they may use more energy than claimed
Argh! No, they don't use more energy, but they do have higher "Load".
Here's the analogy. Every day, hundreds of thousands of people travel in to Boston. Does that mean we need to build hundreds of thousands of new apartments every day? No, because every day they all leave again: they're commuters.
Boston needs to design its roads to handle the rush hour traffic, but it doesn't have to build a ton of houses for them to stay.
Energy in a low power factor circuit is like a commuter: it flows into the device, then it flows back out again. The utility company needs to design its power lines to handle the rush hour flow, but you're not "using up" the energy in any sense.
TFA talks about real wasted energy caused by this "rush hour" flow, but transmission losses are a small fraction of total energy use. This isn't going to affect the overall efficiency of CFLs.
TFA talks about requiring "power factor regulation" on CF light bulbs. This is a pointless extra expense. While CF bulbs make life harder for the power company, other common appliances act to counterbalance the effect, so averaged over an entire city, the problem is mitigated. But even when it's not, the *power company* can always install devices (giant capacitor banks, typically) which compensate for the power factor. There's no need to build more power plants.
So what it comes down to is, CF light bulbs don't use more energy than they claim, but they do generate higher peak loads. We can force either the consumer or the power company to install equipment to compensate for this.
I say, "Hey power company. I'm paying you guys to deliver me some kilowatt-hours. Nothing in my contract limits how I suck up those kWh: if I do it in a way you're not expecting, it's your job to install equipment to handle it."
Since a CFL consumes a exactly constant amount of power it shoul dbe trivial to put in an inductor and capacitor in the package to exactly compensate for it.
Moreover if the power factor is really 0.5 then it seems like just having two of these running in quadrature ought to null the power factor back to 1.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Great logic there... "I'll stick to incandescent 60W seeing that CFLs consume 28W and won't last longer than me".
For what it is worth, I switched to neon tubes in most of the house... a single 36W TL totally pwns a 300W setup of incandescent or halogen bulbs, more light and more accurate colours. Those can be bought for a song nowadays and they are almost instant-on. The conversion actually made me money as I was able to sell two of the previous fixtures at a flea market for more cash than all the neon kits I bought.
I also have a couple of 1.2W LEDs for the night lights in the main hall, but the electronics are quite flakey in my experience.
ARGHH!
Those pesky Canadians causing trouble again, next they will try to burn down Washington...again. But I have news for them, the next time they try it, we will help them!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
While a little more expensive they last even longer (20 years?). They really aren't available much greater than 40 watt replacements but I've been happy with the performance. Not effected by cold and come on instantly.
While I am happy with the savings from using CFLs, I would not hesitate to spend a little more up front to get even more savings and greater longevity from LED lights. Does anyone have solid data on how the three types differ? For example, if to produce the same amount of light incandescent uses 100W, CFL uses 60W (including power losses), how much would LED require? Also, of the above three light sources, if the incandescent lasts 6 months, CFL lasts 10 months, how long would the LED last?
End anonymous moderation and posting on
It is possible the bulbs are just old/damaged and new bulbs would do better but most likley it is the ballast. Old ballasts were mechanical and operated at line frequency. This means that you are going to get flicker at 120Hz since it crosses the null 120 times per second. That is noticeable to some people.
New ballasts, including those in CFLs, are electronic. They cycle at a much higher rate, generally in the realm of 30kHz, because that's more efficient. That also gets rid of visible flicker, of course.
So what you need to do is replace the ballasts. You can get new ones at any home supply store. Alternatively you can just replace the whole fixture, new ones will come with ballasts. Should stop your flicker, reduce your power draw, and last longer to boot.
Eggzactly. Focus on what's important to you. Who cares if it affects other people or beings. You're needs are what's important! Consideration and cooperation are for weaklings!
Just a smidgen further and you would be entirely incoherent.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The bad news: the utilities have to generate the equivalent of 28 watts (that is, 28 VA of apparent power for you EEs out there) to light that bulb. Until they fix these issues, I'll hold on to my incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks."
So it's better to have a 13 watt bulb instead of a 60, but better to have a 60 instead of a 28.
Um, OK.
I wouldn't be so quick to blindly say that you do not pay for power factor. For larger customers, utilities have a reactive component portion of their bill and it works just like a standard demand charge. Smart meters exist to measure all this stuff and can capture it, along with spikes and sags and other things goofy with your power, and wrap all of that up in a nice little bill for you. IT's just a matter of deploying the technology to the field.
PS. I hate CFLs and LEDs and I miss normal bulbs.
This is my sig.
*For AC circuits
Transmission losses don't come close to "extra demand" the FUD in the article implies, though.
Because you have gas heat but electric AC, and you changed the bulbs in the fall?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Uhm...polar bears can swim better than I do?
Wait...Is this a trick question?!?!?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I will say this, well I can engage in an activity that maybe in some far off future leads to global warming and drowsing polar bears or I can engage in an activity that puts harmful heavy metals and PCBs into the air your breath and the water YOU drink today! So what do you prefer little Timy?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
"I'll hold on to my incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks."
Good luck getting any incandescent bulbs - all of the electrical retailers in the UK have 'voluntarilty' decided to stop selling them (starting with the 100W ones now, 60W ones next year etc)
Most people are used to "soft" or "warm" light from incandescents -- low color temperature. Most early CFLs were "cool" or "daylight" -- high kelvin temperature. Now you can get both, but "warm" (low color temperature). are more common because that's what most people prefer. Check the color temperature on the box before you buy!
Also, if you have flicker or a buzz, or a slow startup, you got a low quality bulb. Return it and get a different brand. Or buy several and see which ones you like the best. Good CFLs don't flicker or buzz, and they start up essentially instantly. There is a lot of variety between brands and models. And quality averages way better than it used to, although there still are some bad apples out there.
And I haven't seen any reasonably priced dimmable CFLs to test out (do you need a special dimmer?)
I got several cases of dimmables on Ebay a couple years ago, and they work just great, on my normal dimmers. Don't remember the brand, but I could get it for you at home if you need it.
By the way -- how many Slashdot articles (like this one) are we going to have full of people trying desperately to come up with a way to justify their decision to spend *way* more money in electricity and increase emissions because they're too lazy or stuck in their ways to merely change their lightbulbs? I mean, come on... is power factor really the best they can come up with? Really, if that's your excuse, just buy a freaking high power factor bulb. Yes, they exist, and have power factors in the 0.9 to 0.95 range. But even with low power factor bulbs -- since when is 1/4 (CFL apparent power consumption relative to incandescent) * 2 (power factor=0.5 CFL) greater than 1.0 (incandescent)?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Speaking of conscience, why is it that Slashdot is an oft-repeat offender in spreading anti-CFL nonsense? I've seen many pieces like this here.
If your utility has serious trouble with the power-factor of CFLs, they will tune the system with some additional inductance or capacitance. But they don't. Because this isn't a problem. It's the power factor for the sum of everything on the secondary of your local transformer that is a problem, and that probably ends up being close to 1.0 . Smart transformers, by the way, tune this automatically. I see them on more poles lately.
Second, the mercury issue. Which is 1/10 the mercury put out by burning hydrocarbons (especially coal) for powering incandescent lamps. Yes, the mercury from CFLs is mercury in your house, and the other kind of mercury from the generators powering incandescent lighting is just in the air you breathe in your house. And then, they take some time to start. This is a problem for some outdoor use, and tolerable for indoor use unless your home is really cold. And some of them burned out too fast, like any cheap electronics. Learn which brands don't.
It's nice that practical LEDs are coming some day. I'm sure we'll hear lots of propaganda about the arsenic and other toxic things in them, even though it's close to impossible to actually get those chemicals out of the chip, out of the plastic around the chip, etc., and they're in such small amounts that it doesn't matter anyway.
I only have one incandescent lamp left in my home, and that one is going to leave someday soon too. We are a healthy, happy family, and we're spending less and hurting the environment less. That's the reality for CFL users.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Lighting only accounts for about 1% of electricity use and most of that is already efficient bulbs - street lights are mercury vapour lamps and all large buildings use fluorescent bulbs already. So, even if all households switch all bulbs to CFLs, the utilities won't be able to see a measurable difference in energy consumption.
The vast bulk of electricity is used by foundries, glass and aluminium smelters, after that comes the rest of industry and way last on the list is home users.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Yes, but the power that needs to be generated isn't increased by a factor equal to the reciprocal of the PF, which is what TFA seems to assume. The actual effect is, I believe, to divide transmission losses (not total power generated) by the square of the power factor, such that if transmission losses were 5% with a 1.0 PF, they would be 20% with a 0.5 PF.
IIRC, the overall average transmission losses for utility power are somewhere around 7-8%.
I have changed out most of the lights in my house to cfls, however, despite the 7 year claims, I found that about 1/2 of them fail within 2 years. I'm sure it's a quality issue, I would love to see some real studies.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
The original text was written for a different audience, though I thought it would work for /. as well. Guess not. :-)
To power the 13 W light bulb with a 0.45 pf, you need to generate 28 VA (plus change) of power. This same electrical output could also power a 28 W light bulb with a 1.0 pf. (All assuming negligible resistive transmission losses.) I know it's not consumed by the end user, but it is energy being put out at the plant nonetheless.
Timmy (he prefers to have it spelled properly thanks) would tell you that the amount of mercury put into the air and water by the coal powered power plants needed to power your incandescent bulbs dwarf the amount put into that CF bulb. CF bulbs are still a net mercury reduction. At least until we get more green power online. At which point we'll have to reanalyze.
Funny how no answer is perfect, nor stays the best answer in perpetuity. It's almost as though we're going to make value judgments and reevaluate our choices periodically.
Here is another aspect of the impact of CFLs compared to incandescent bulbs... per an EPA fact sheet, even if your CFL breaks the amount of Mercury released into the environment is less then the amount released by a regular bulb and a coal power plant. If you do break your CFL, there are steps that you need to take to get it cleaned up. Snopes has some good tips on how to do that
Build up those ears a bit and you've got it made with the Trekkie crowd.
The consumers are paying for it. They're just not paying for it in proportion to the amount each one is doing this.
Nobody ever eats a cost; they always pass it on.
It essentially comes out the same in the short-term, though. Consumers aren't going to be interested in paying for something, if they can spread that cost out across all consumers unfairly. (e.g. Why should an investor lose money due to making a foolish investment, when they can get a taxpayer bailout instead?)
Long-term, when it gets to the point that most people are using CFLs, then it will be in consumers' interest to get other people to use more efficient ones, so they'll either demand that the utility company bill more realistically, or they'll use government to regulate CFL efficiency.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
My mother inlaw bought 2 CFL to use in her kitchen. They are still going strong and they are probably the most used lights in her house. She paid a fair bit for them back in 94, but I'd say 15 years of consistent power savings has long since balanced out ;)
I've replaced all of the lights in my house with CFLs over the last 5 years. The only ones that have a slow light time are the super compact ones I got to fit in a specific light fixture. And the only 2 that have "burnt out" were due to excessive vibration (one in the garage) and another that I caught with a chunk of sheet rock while remodeling.
And most of them are from the elcheapo 5-packs that I paid under $15 for.
I've had no issues with flickering, the color quality is quite warm (I actually have to bring in a colder light when I'm painting, but for room lighting they are great). So even if they are sucking up 28 watts instead of 14, that's still 1/2-1/4 what I would be sucking up using 60-100watt bulbs.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
These guys have measured a lot of lamps, mostly CFL and LED, and from randomly clicking a number of CFL measurement reports I get the impression the typical power factor is about 0.6, not the 0.45-0.50 mentioned in the article.
From what I remember from electrical engineering classes, it seemed rather simple.
I guess it's a good thing incandescents aren't illegal or anything.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Mike Grather, of Lumenaire Testing Laboratory, 'checked the power factor for the CFLs and found they ranged from .45 to .50. Their "real" load was about twice that implied by their wattage.'
Oh, good grief!
It's a LEADING power factor, a load with a large CAPACITIVE component.
The main problem with electric grids is all the INDUCTIVE loads with a LAGGING power factor - like big induction motors. The power company has to hang capacitors (or other power-factor correctors, such as certain synchronous motors) all over the grid to "generate" the VARs that are "consumed" by the inductive loads. So until they're responsible for more reactive power than the motors, transformers, and such the compact fluorescents will be HELPING the power company.
Neglecting harmonics (which are a whole 'nother can of squiggles) the main issues for power transmission are:
- "Real Power" ("watts" = volts times amps) (current is in-phase with voltage).
- "Reactive power" ("VARs" {"volt-amps reactive"} = volts time reactive current) (current is 90 degrees out of phase with voltage, either "leading" or "lagging").
Cycle-by-cycle:
- Real Power generation must match consumption.
- Reactive Power "generation" (current into a load leading voltage) must match "consumption" (current into a load lagging voltage).
Whatever mismatch occurs in the field will be supplied by the generators and transmitted across the grid to the load. The Reactive Power (or "imaginary power" - because it's times sqrt(-1) when you use complex numbers to represent real and reactive at once) represents current thrown back-and-forth between capacitances and inductances. But when it gets transmitted on the lines or generated by a rotating machine it vector-sums with the real current, resulting in a higher current magnitude.
The losses in the lines and the generator and transformer coils are current-squared-times-resistance, and those are REAL energy losses that must be made up by the prime mover applying torque to the generator's shaft, regardless of the relative phases of the current and voltage. Also, the limit on transformer and generator capacity is heating due to current, so it's this vector-sum current that is the limit.
The power company would like to run their generators and lines as close to power factor 1 (all the current is in-phase) as possible, to get the most out of their equipment and to minimize the resistive losses that they have to make up for with fuel.
But most of the "reactive load" on the grid is induction from transformers and motors. So an inductive load is (arbitrarily) defined as "consuming" reactive power - thus defining a capacitive load as "generating" it. The power company buys and installs a lot of expensive capacitors (and switching equipment to turn them on and off as needed) all over the net, to "generate" much of the reactive power needs, making most regions as a whole close to resistive as possible and minimize VAR transmission and the resulting extra line losses.
The compact fluorescents will actually HELP this. Your neighborhood and its nearby business districts no doubt has far more inductive load (from normal fluorescents, arc lights, refrigerators, fans, blowers, compressors, etc.) than capacitive load (from switching power supplies, including those in compact fluorescent and electronic "balasts" for tube fluorescents). This will continue to be true even if ALL the lamps are replaced by CFs and electronic-ballasted fluorescents. So the reactive current from your CF lamps will flow only through a small amount of wiring before canceling out that from some inductor. This means they produce virtually no wiring loss. Indeed, it will likely keep VARs from motors from being sucked across more line resistance from a nearby pole-installation or substation's capacitors or over the long-haul grid from further away, for a net gain.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamps) makes them seem interesting/promising, but it's a bit dry, does anybody here have significant experience/knowledge of them?
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
I have had the complete opposite experience with CFL's. I have a relatively new house (going on 6 years) and I have tried 4 separate sets of CFL floods in my kitchen. Every set burned out after only 1-2 months. My first incandescent set lasted 4 yrs! I finally switched back to incandescent and put in a dimmer. Not a single light has burned out in over a year.
I find a marked difference between cheap supermarket CFLs and say, brand name ones like Phillips etc. Chinese knock-off bulbs usually relabels as a store-brand are the culprits, They have in some cases very short lifetimes, and dubious components. I've had many start to make scary fizzing popping noises, get hot, burn marks then just die.
I also have a power meter that shows some of these bulbs using much more than twice the power they claim to. Interestingly these ones subsequently die.
On the other hand I have good bulbs, 4+ years old, that have had to come with me when I've moved house the last few times, they just won't die.
Now, the less time exposed to danger, up a ladder, changing bulbs must be priceless.
It can't be long before we see the first practical LED bulbs on shelves: http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/09/philips-master-led-light-bulb-set-for-us-release-in-july/
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
But polar bears are cute and the teacher at the government school said you were making all their ice melt and they'd all fall in the water and drown!!
I can just drink soda.
(Note how 7-year-old environmentalist sounds a lot like 27-year-old environmentalist.)
It's not cyanide. We had it in thermometers and extra-quiet light switches and all kinds of places for decades, and the world did not die of mercury poisoning. The major causes of death were, are, and will remain heart disease, cancer, strokes, being hit by a car, and being shot by your nephew (in the USA).
We used to PLAY with mercury, FFS -- it was great fun. Of all the things to be scared of, fear of mercury is below fear of pointed sticks.
I piss off bigots.
I have some ordinary CFLs bought for cheap at a Wal-Mart in Ohio (i.e. not exactly the place one would expect to find anything "special" in terms of green technology) and they clock in at PFs of 0.64 (single 12w) and 0.61 (three-way 12/20/30w) according to my Kill-A-Watt. The report mentions PFs as low as .45, so are they testing with really shitty bulbs? I can't imagine anything worse quality than what one would find on sale at Wal-Mart under an unknown brand...
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
I have fitted my whole house using ULA brand CFL lights. The box says >90% power factor. I have measured the power factor of several of these bulbs, and they have actually measured between 92% and 94%.
And, they are dimmable. (Ok -- they don't dim as much as incandescent lights, and some of them want to flicker. But dimming doesn't destroy them immediately.)
In the bargain, they are cheap. (At least, they are cheap in California, and on ebay from CA sellers, until the PGE subsidy runs out.)
So, you have to pay attention to power factor when you buy anything that is not incandescent. But if you pay attention, you can still get a good deal.
My original post which got modded +5 did not take this reply properly into account.
The
I've replaced around 50% of the bulbs in my house with CFLs. I have one lamp that I keep lit 24/7, and the CFL bulb has burned out in that fixture twice over the past three years. The two bulbs that failed each lasted approximately one year, and the most recent failure was almost a year ago, so I'm about due for another burnout. With the lifespan of standard-grade CFL bulbs being rated at 6-8 years with 3-4 hours of daily use, the math basically indicates that the bulbs lived their expected lifetimes.
I've replaced the most often used bulbs in my house with CFLs, but haven't bothered to replace the bulbs in closets or other locations that are seldom used. I generally use "soft white" CFLs, but the light was too yellow for my den's color scheme and I switched to "daylight" CFLs in that room. These were a bit too blue at first, but I've gotten used to them. "Soft white" incandescent bulbs never bothered me in that room.
Yes, if you have electric heat, you will not notice a savings in the winter. You save in all other scenarios.
This is really fascinating and has economic impacts on power generators and utilities, because "reactive power" and "real power" are compensated entirely differently at the wholesale level.
We in the bulk electricity industry think of reactive power as a service that is needed to ensure the reliable operation of the bulk power (a.k.a. high voltage transmission lines) system. Because reactive power is generally created for reliability reasons, there's a strong sense that no individual generator of electricity should profit by providing a necessary service. Instead, the existing compensation system for the creation of reactive power is based on a generator's individualized cost of producing that reactive power with a very small markup. In contrast, generators receive compensation for real power based on the prevailing price for power set by the market (either through an organized market or via a bilateral contract. And yes, I know I'm simplifying horribly). In order words -- the profit potential when you generate real power is significantly higher than when you are generating reactive power -- though of course, the risks are also higher. As a general rule, nobody wants to be stuck holding the economic bag for having to generate more then their share of reactive power (with some unit-specific exceptions).
Further, the compensation rules within various utility footprints for reactive power vary -- generally, everyone producing reactive power is eligible to receive payment for their reactive power -- or nobody is. The Feds simply ensure that the local utility isn't discriminating by providing their affiliates with reactive power payments, while denying comparable payments to the competition (something that used to be endemic).
It's critical to remember that reactive power + real power = total output of the facility. When reactive power production goes up, real power production decreases. So the idea that these lightbulbs are eating more than their share of reactive power has significant economic implications.
I don't even want to think of what it means for reactive power reserve margins (i.e., the "cushion" that utilities are required to have on standby at all times) if the lightbulbs become even more ubiquitous. Just goes to show that when electricity is involved, nothing is simple and no good environmental deed goes unpunished.
" many consumers are disappointed with the slow warm-up times, lower-than-advertised lifetimes, and hassles of disposing the mercury-containing bulbs.
I would wager that most consumers just throw them in the trash. Sure, you're supposed to recycle them, etc., but most people don't know that and don't read the instructions. The hassle factor for most consumers is zero.
Advice: on VPS providers
The solution is obvious.
Power companies will have to introduce a CFL levy.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The amount of mercury in an average person's mouth (because of amalgam fillings, still widely used) is far larger than in the lightbulbs in one's house.
The Raven
All I know is that I have reduced my power bill from over $100 mo. to $53.00 mo. It is hard to argue with results. Also, if the utility company really pushes out that much more (28w) then you can bet that Incandescents also use slightly more 'equivalent' power than advertised. Either way we are consuming less power, which helps everyone. Someone at the Incandescent plant has been putting money into this researchers pocket if you ask me.
The higher the voltage on any incandescent bulb (including halogen), the thinner and longer the filament needs to be. That means it has to be sized to operate at a lower temperature, which is less efficient because that shifts the spectrum more into the infra-red (it's already mostly in infra-red, anyway). But at a lower voltage, the filament is shorter and thicker, allowing it to operate at a higher temperature. This shifts the spectrum to shorter wavelengths, with more of the emission in the visible wavelengths for a given power level coming in. Less is wasted as heat. Halogen bulbs also enhance this with some infra-red reflection back into the filament.
I don't actually need a lot of light. Where using ordinary incandescent, I regularly use 25 watt or even 15 watt bulbs. I can't even find CFLs for the lower light levels I use in a lot of places. But these are even worse for efficiency due to the lower operating temperature. Low voltage halogen lights in the 10 to 18 watt range give a lot more light. The efficiency improvement isn't as good as CFL or plain FL, but you still get good quality light. The efficiency is good enough to make up for the step down transformer, and still leave you with a lot of improvement. Transformers do hum, and some solid state voltage converters do exist that run quiet. But unlike fluorescent or other HID which require a ballast in the fixture, you can relocate the step-down transformer at some distance from the light (generally up to 10 or even 20 meters away).
This is not the most efficient way to go. But it is a good way to go for task lighting which requires good quality light in certain situations (for reading, in the kitchen, in the shop), while CFL and LED is fine for a lot of other uses. Maybe in the future, they will improve the light quality of CFL and LED by filling in the gaps between the peaks in the spectrum.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
A low power factor leads to increased transmission line losses, but thats a big difference from doubling generation costs.
it should be trivial to put in an inductor and capacitor in the package to exactly compensate for it.
Only if you make some very bad assumptions. That works for old-fashioned floro tubes (inductive load), but not for CFLs.
If you live in Alberta the utilities actually pass the cost directly to the consumer. It's a long and complicated explanation but the consumer is actually the one that gets pinned for poor power factors. Or you can just add some caps to those suckers and you're set ;)
Har?
I bought about 10 Philips 20W CFLs last year. Six of them died in the first couple of months of operation. In a house with all-new wiring and a suburb with fairly clean power so not much chance of transients or ohmic heating at the ballast-socket junctions.
On the other hand, I bought some $20 18W ones back in 1999 and (I think) 4 of 6 are still going strong today. They might have been Osram, I don't recall.
The point is, there's a lot of variance in quality of CFLs, and I don't really feel qualified enough to recommend a good one to go for, other than to avoid Philips.
All the review sites I've seen are focussed on colour purity and power consumption rather than longevity. Does anyone on /. know of a good review site that takes user submissions?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
If the power factor if 0.5, then the resistive losses in the lines (and the generator itself, for that matter) is going to be higher than it would be if it was 1.0, but that's the extent of it.
So, if the power plant needed to generate 14 watts -- 13 watts for the light, 1 watt for resistive losses for to get that power there, and the power factor was 1.0, then if you had a power factor of 0.5 instead, the power plant would have to generate 15 watts instead, not 26 or 28.
The only time that a power factor of 0.5 would double the amount of actual power needed vs a power factor of 1.0 would be if the resistive losses (at power factor=1.0) were similar to the losses in the device itself (I haven't done the exact algebra to figure it out) -- which would be incredibly inefficient. The power grid is much better than that.
Won't somebody note in the main summary that it is just plain wrong. The utilities only have the transmission losses of the poor power factor (and probably not along the entire tx path since they are often corrected) which are nowhere near the double consumption which is quoted. Probably an order of magnitude less.
OK traditional bulbs use around 40 extra watts over CFLs. Where do the extra watts end up, heat right? So I live in an area where I have to heat my house 9 months of the year. So the the way I see it, the old style bulbs help heat my house, and I just consume less energy from my heating appliance. Isn't this a wash energy wise? Am I really saving anything system wide with CFLs?
A lot of folks don't realize the bulb lifetime is reduced by cycling the power on and off. What they save on electrical power is offset by the cost of replacing reduced lifetime bulbs. My rough calculations show the break even point is about 20 minutes. Any shorter and the bulb cost may exceed the savings on electricity. I can't get any hard data so this is a SWAG.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
Buy a rechareable LED headlight.
Switch off your incandescents and your CFLs
You only need to illuminate what you are looking at.
So anyone think the original article is bunk? I mean what is perceived power and furthermore 28 60, how would the utility companies notice a difference? I may not be an Electrical Engineer, or even a general electrician but I can smell fear inducing lies at least as well as the next person.
My understanding from an IEEE article a while back was that the ballasts are designed cheaply, to keep the unit cost low for CFLs. The problem is that the power draw graph of the CFL is pretty rectangular instead of constant, turning the nice sine wave of voltage from the utility into a mess (bad "harmonics"). When line current and voltage are out of phase, you get a bad power factor because you can't harness the power (current and voltage combo) effectively. So CFLs don't have to be bad, we just make crappy ballasts for them because it hasn't been much of a problem yet in aggregate.
As someone who refuses to fall for half-baked 'Green Thinking', and by that I mean ideas that win over our legislatures despite being more flawed than the current methods, I now own:
1. An illegal truck,
2. Illegal fuel cans,
3. Illegal light bulbs, and
4. Illegal toilets.
Whenever some new 'green' idea, it seems to overwhelm Congress and they spring for it, forgetting about the severe flaws in what they think is a wonderful technology.
Let's go down the list again:
1. An illegal truck. Currently, my old diesel pickup is more fuel efficient that a Toyota Prius, considering I get half the mileage, but at 2.31 times the weight. Also, there is the increased lifespan of the vehicle, and the fact that the Prius is not fully recyclable, and contains a very large and hazardous, non-recyclable battery. Yet, the Prius is considered more 'green' than my diesel pickup. Enough so that they have numerous incentives, such as using the carpool lane with no restrictions, and allow manufacturers and dealers to wronfully claim that they are more efficient, while placing heavier restrictions on more efficient vehicles.
2. Illegal Fuel Cans. I own and use the old-school Blitz fuel cans (the kind that resemble and old Jerry can) to store my extra fuel. They are now illegal to sell in California, because they do not meet emissions standards by having a rigid spring loaded nozzle to prevent vapors from escaping. Blitz cans have a large metal cap that screws onto the can, and the flexible screw-on spouts have a smaller metal screw-on cap. The new CA-legal nozzle is very cumbersome to use, especially when you are trying to pull back on the nozzle to open it AND hold and balance a very large and oddly-shaped 5 gallon fuel can. This usually results in fuel spilled which then evaporates to the atmosphere, completely defeating their intended purpose and causing a very hazardous situation. I many cases, the nozzles are too short to fuel up a car or vehicle without spillage. Irritatingly, unlike Blitz cans, they are also very oddly shaped, which makes stacking and storing them a hassle, not to mention the downsides of a meltable plastic container over a steel one. A steel can will rust, but it can easily be replaced before it fails, whereas a plastic one is more likely to be in proximity to heat sources that may cause it to melt and fail, spilling its contents rapidly.
3. Illegal Light Bulbs. I refuse to buy a CFL despite all the hype. Light bulbs break, and in their current widespread use, they break quite often. When a conventional incandescent bulb breaks, you just sweep up the shards and throw them away. When a CFL breaks, you have hazardous mercury thrown into the mix. Now, a simple broken bulb is now a hazardous materials accident. You now have mercury vapor coming into contact with a floor, and condensing on it. Where to children crawl? On the floor, and picking up the mercury. Where do people walk? On the floor, spreading it to various other surfaces and their hands when they touch their shoes or feet. If it were to break on a carpet (like from being accidentally stepped on, or after hitting furniture), that mercury vapor condenses and becomes embedded in the fibers.
4. Illegal Toilets. Low-flow toilets are more prone to clogging than regular toilets. I've seen shows where someone claims that their toilet can successfully flush a dozen or so golf balls down the drain without clogging. However, human feces are NOT golf balls. I know its disgusting to think about it, but in an engineering they are VERY different: Golf balls bounce, feces does not. Golf balls are hard, feces are not. Golf balls do not stick to porcelein, feces does. The differences are ones that you can figure out on your own. With a low-flow toilet, there is less energy available to overcome waste matter, its adhering to the toilet, and push it, and toilet paper, down the drain successfully. This requires more flushes and more clogged drains resulting in creased water use. The only thing low-flow toilet manufacturers have pro
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
This was "busted" by MythBusters: http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html And another article from Lawrence Berkeley: http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-45862.pdf (scroll down to myth #3).
Still better than a 100W incandescent.
Absolutely. But we can still do better. I'm just amazed at how bad some of these cheap designs are.
Screw based CFLs are the ones with the power factor problem. With pin-based you can get whatever ballast you want and generally those ballasts have >.9 PF, with most being around .97 or .98. Check out Advance Transformer's offerings.
For retrofits, screw based CFLs are certainly easier to swap out for your old incandescents, but for new construction or significant renovations there's no reason not to switch your fixtures out to accommodate pin based CFLs. Pin based have the added advantage of being able to be dimmed properly (provided you have the right ballast and controls... a simple rheostat won't do it).
this has been a subject of much discussion on the greenkeys listserv. greenkeys are radio teletype operators using ham radios to send text messages - the original IM system.
a number of posters there have noted the extremely high RFI coming out of these cheaply manufactured devices, which interfere with telecommunications devices like ham radios, remote controls, cellphones, etc.
given the number of people sensitive to electromagnetic interference, aren't we trading one problem for another?
Ask Me About... The 80's!
This was plenty clear in the article: the aggrieved party is the power company which ends up supplying two units of energy for every unit billed, if you trust the napkin math on power factors, which I don't.
I think the issue with power factor pertains to aggregate load. If you have a large resistive load, and you add a power factor 0.5 bulb, I don't think the bulb boosts the supply requirement by twice its rated wattage.
The problem for the modern electrical grid, as I understand it, is that with so much electrical equipment on the grid, power factor has become a losing battle. I don't think there is any joy at the generation companies that a large chunk of the remaining resistive load is being shuffled out in favour of power factor piglets.
All the computers I've built myself over the last few years have high power factor PSUs. I suspect one conscientious PSU offsets half a dozen dubious CFLs.
CFLs are destined to function as a transition market. Around the time that all the shoddy goods are driven out of the market, the CFL itself will be displaced by a superior technology, accompanied by an almost instantaneous ban on mercury containing bulbs, in the same way that toxic additives in gasoline are rarely banned until halfway cost effective replacements are in the pipeline.
I have an insufficient fixture in the kitchen rated for a pair of 60W incandescents. Instead I run a 100W incandescent in tandem with a 14W CFL, which produces about twice as much light at the same power rating, and with a reasonable colour mix.
Unlike some people here, I've never had a CFL that buzzed, few have been slow to start, and the burn-out rate hasn't been a factor, but I've probably been more strategic in their deployment than most people.
My apartment has electric base board heat. For half the year, heat generated by my servers is merely offsetting electricity that would have gone into base board heating. Keeping the place at 16 degrees C over the winter months, we get enough incidental heat that the base boards rarely come on. On the really cold days, I cook a pot roast, and the base boards don't come on.
As a child I was surprised that you could screw an incandescent bulb into an Easy Bake Oven and cook a nicely browned but not exceptionally edible cake with it. Wasn't it supposed to produce light, not heat? Our surprise should be the other way around: that you can screw an Easy Bake Oven heating element into a light socket and read a book with it.
A pity that the electrical grid most efficiently supplies the least rational use.
In my defense, most of Boston's commuters are driving cars in to work every day. So it is an automotive analogy. Can I stay?
I've had several CFLs burn out within a matter of 3 or 4 months. The others I'm using seem to be lasting. I don't mind the longer warm up time or the fact that they've been over-hyped re performance (gee, what a surprise!). I would appreciate better quality after spending $4 or more per bulb.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
Per CBS: .04 mg (typical canned stuff) and .68 mg (albacore) of mercury.
1 kg of tuna - a huge amount for a meal - will have between
Parent's assertion of 1mg is FUD
Mercury in the CFLs is also FUD (how often do you shatter these bulbs ffs)
We tried CFLs over 2006-2007. We will be using incandescents until the government (probably) takes them away.
1) we live in a 100+ year old home. I'm guessing it's the varying voltage or line spikes, but we never saw nearly the life gains claimed by the tech. CFL typically lasted about as long (60% lasted a LITTLE longer - like a month or so, 40% actually didn't last as long as incandescents) but the last 15% of their lifespan their light output was noticeably dimmer or different in some annoying way.
2) we've been advised by our state pollution authorities that if a CFL breaks:
- we are to open the windows to ventilate the room at least 15 minutes.
- all people must leave immediately.
- all the fragments must be picked up by cardboard and/or tape
- the waste may not be thrown out, it must be disposed in a "haz waste collection area"
Higher cost, no significant gain in light life, MUCH more complicated disposal....nope, in MY PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE they don't make sense.
-Styopa
And hopefully you are using a source that is significantly cheaper per BTU than electric! Even with the recent rise in cost for natural gas it's still about 2/5th's the cost per BTU if burned in a 93% efficient furnace. Fuel oil and propane aren't as efficient due to high delivery costs but they are still in the realm of 1/2 to 3/5ths the cost per BTU.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
A standard electric meter is a true integrating wattmeter. It sums the instantaneous product of voltage and current over time. That's the correct measurement of energy consumed.
The design is quite clever. There are two electromagnets in a single-phase electric meter. The magnetic flux from one is proportional to the voltage, and the flux from the other is proportional to the current. The effect is that the torque on the aluminum meter disc is proportional to the product of the magnetic fluxes. The disc is retarded by a permanent magnet drag brake, which applies a braking torque proportional to speed. So total rotation is the sum of the torque applied by the coils over time. It's one of those neat little results from electromagnetics.
This invention was made by Shallenberger, in 1893. By 1903, General Electric had introduced their Type I meter, which worked like today's mechanical meters. Some were still in use as late as 1960. Progress since then included temperature compensation, better magnets, etc., but the basic concept hasn't changed in a century.
All-electronic versions emulate the electromagnetic design, and are also true integrating wattmeters.
The original submission is written by an idiot. Power factor is the ratio between real power to apparent power - notice anything? Indeed, apparent power does not require any energy to produce, it can be created endlessly from passive compensation devices. Yes, it is an annoyance for the utility providers, because they has to do this compensation, but it is a very minor issue.
So LEDs might be a lot nicer, but it is for other reasons:directed light, better aging, instant brightness, smaller form factor etc. And is it worth 10 times the prices? Maybe for you, but not for me.
I like that my bedside light comes on slowly in the morning, it's less of a shock to my eyes.
Try getting up later!
paintball
A tuna steak is likely to contain as much as 1mg
EPA's methylmercury reference dose is .1 micrograms/kg body weight per day. Where is your 1.0 milligrams from?
I've lost the link now, but it was a study of the amounts of mercury found in various fish. The tuna came out way higher than most others, IIRC it was about 0.3mg per 100g of fish. I don't think all of that was methyl mercury though, so it isn't as dangerous as it sounds (as methyl mercury is a lot more dangerous than most other forms of mercury).
Someone got the concept of power factor wrong.
The bad news: the utilities have to generate the equivalent of 28 watts
This is NOT true. The utilities have to TRANSPORT the equivalent of 28 watts. If they manage to hold on to 90% of what they transport, costs them just over a Watt of extra energy they need to produce.
Some of the cheap Chinese CFL are poor regarding color of light, power consumption, life span and startup time. In order to help consumers pick out the higher quality CFL the power savings council in Denmark (Elsparefonden in Danish) have tested a long list of CFL. Based on the test they have setup a list of "approved A class" CFLs which meet a set in minimum requirements. The list can be found here: http://application.sparel.dk/asp/a-paere/query/paerewiz/liste.asp A description of the requirements they set for the A class CFLs can be found here (via google translate) http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elsparefonden.dk%2Fforbruger%2Fprodukter%2Fbelysning%2Fa-paerer%2Ffakta-om-a-peren&sl=da&tl=en
CFL's are pretty much obsolete on arrival. At least here in the Netherlands, shelf-space is already shifting from CFL's to LED light-bulbs for the lower wattage models (Brighter bulbs are expected by the end of this year). LED bulbs consume even less power than CFL's: Most models are in the 1, 2 or 3 watt range (equivalent to 20-40 watt incandescent bulbs).
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
I'll hold on to my incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks.
Yes, because a 100W incandescent is much more efficient than a 18W CFL that after all, consumes 36W. Come on, people. I know you're naturally allergic to anything "green", but isn't this reasoning completely stupid?
Since so many people have started switching to them, the electric company has raised rates 4 times. We've changed (almost) all our lights, and we make sure computers get turned off at night. Yet we're paying more now than we were when we had 5 computers running 24/7 and every bulb a 60W incandescent.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
So, the bulb uses 13 watts, has a power factor of 0.6, so really uses 26 watts of electricity.
Seeing how that bulb replaces a 60 watt bulb, still seems like a net gain to me. Last I checked, 26 was less than half og 60.
This article to me seems like yet another attempt to keep lazy people from changing their light bulbs. It is such a simple thing to do and if everyone in North America did it we would save millions upon millions of tonnes of CO2 from the air.
Not to mention hudreds up hundreds of millions of dollars that is essentially lost money to the economy, because those dollars are just paying for a commodity that is being destroyed and thus not adding any economic value.
Or so it seems.
As far as disposal, simply put them on a box when they are done. Take to dump once a year (with the rest of the stuff you are tossing in the land fill). Dump box of used CFL's into container designated for them... letting the guys at the dump toss them in the land fill.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I lived once in a smallish apartment for a while over a couple of Winters. I was surprised to learn that I didn't have to turn on the heat once all season, and even had to open the windows a few times because it got too warm.
I thought at first that this had to do with the position of my apartment in relation to the Sun, the ambient heat put out by the surrounding apartments and the basic heating maintained by the building to stop pipes from bursting. And then I returned after a long weekend away where the lights had all been left off, and it was freekin' cold!
Though, I should add that my computer was also off. --That sucker generates a lot of waste heat. I wonder if I'd have needed to wear sweaters more often if it was running on an Atom chip. . ?
-FL
Oooo... Real math -- *shivers*. Here's a little _applied_ real math for you.
What do you consider "miniscule"? One percent of a plant's output? Two percent? A typical power plant costs $500 million to build and hundreds of millions in variable and fixed costs (largely fuel, but also operations and maintenance, etc). When a power plant received reactive power compensation, you first determine the total costs of operating the plant -- including capital, fixed and variable. You then assign a percentage of the plant's total costs to the reactive power requirements.
In my crazy-simplified example, the annual revenue requirements associated with a "miniscule" one percent change in reactive power requirements is roughly $5 million per year. That's math I can get behind.
But that understates the real cost of producing reactive power. The real money comes in when you consider the lost opportunity costs when a power plant is required to generate reactive power instead of real power that it can sell at market rates. A 500 MW power plant, hypothetically operating at full capacity year round (8760 hours per year) generates 4.3 million MW-hours of electricity. Each MW hour is worth a minimum of about $25. Reduce that 4.3 million MW-hours by 1 percent because you're making reactive power, and you've just lost at least $1 million. Now obviously, these numbers don't work -- the example is horribly simplified. But the key point here is that the numbers are enormous.
I've been involved in extensive litigation over the years on reactive power compensation issues, so I think I know a little more about the financial implications of "miniscule" reactive power changes than you.
I wish journalists would either learn a little bit about electricity, or not write about it.
This story has things kinda sideways when not completely wrong.
"Power factor" has been known about for over 100 years now. It's not anything new or particularly bad in CCFL's. Lots of industrial loads and electric vehicles have inherently bad power factors, all of which can be controlled at the source, the transmission line, or at the load with, guess what, "power factor controllers".
Anything with a switching-mode power supply will have, unless corrected, a lousy power factor. With most homes having a TV or computer or two, all with SMPS's, the bad power factor is already in the house. CCFL's wil only make a minor contribution.
And NO, definitely NOT, the power plant does not have to generate the extra watts- they're imaginary watts-- voltage when there's no current, and current when there's no voltage. Since power is voltage TIMES current, when one of them is zero there is no real power being drawn.
There is a *slight* increase in losses as higher amps being draws do result in a *very small* extra loss in the intervening wires.
When they get real simple 100-year old princiles wrong, how much can you trust the other "facts" in the article?
The latest CFLs I bought months ago have an advertised PF of 0.90, far better than this article's claims of ~0.50. As with any consumer product, quality varies greatly. Don't get caught up in the hype either way.
Uh...? I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning at all. That "28-13W" would have to be generated anyway. Think of a capacitive load. The capacitor stores energy and pushes it back into the circuit, depending on which part of the cycle it is in. This means that your other appliances will end up using this energy. There is actually no issue here. "This same electrical output" could not power a PF 1.0 bulb because it is not actually 28W. It is 28VA, which is a completely different thing.
Reactive power does not transfer energy, so it is represented as the imaginary basis. Real power moves energy, so it is the real basis. Also look down the page to "Reactive Power Flow", which is how utilities should balance the PF..
TFS is a load of BS(some would even say FUD). Sorry.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I like lots of light. Bright-sunny-day kind of light, especially in the bleak middle of a grey winter. I took the three lamps in my room with 100w incandescent bulbs and replaced them... with three 105w CFLs. I had to special order them online, since I have yet to see a Home Depot/Lowes/Walmart/Target/etc with anything close.
They're big suckers, but they fit a standard socket, use basically the same amount of energy, and they give me almost 1600-incandescent-watt equivalent of light (21,000 lumens). Great way to wake up in the early morning.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
The power company already deals with load.
The power company is aggrieved because one of their revenue streams is decreasing because of the CF.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The presentation of power factor is very misleading, if not outright wrong. Power factor is a measure of the phase of the voltage versus the phase of the current in the system; this phase difference causes higher current flow than would be expected for a given power output, but it does NOT increase the power consumed.
Where it does cause problems is that the increased current causes increased losses in the supply lines, and it puts a heavier load on those lines. A supply line that can carry a thousand amperes can only carry a thousand amperes; if part of that is due to bad power factor, less power can be transferred when the line is operating at capacity.
For most environments, the supply lines run well below capacity, so it's not like this is a big deal unless all of the loading begins to come from low power factor CFLs (which isn't bloody likely.)
Additionally, supply line losses are typically less than 1% of the power delivered over them. The following contrived worst case example demonstrates the implications of this.
Assume a 50% loaded line that loses 1% of the power delivered over it at a power factor of 1.0.
That same line will be 100% loaded at a power factor of 0.5, and will suffer a 4% power loss. (P = I*I*R)
In short, the actual losses due to bad power factor are only a few percent, even in a worst case scenario. Much more important is the network loading.
It should also be noted that utility companies employ extensive power factor correction at substations and other locations. All electric motors and inductors have power factor issues by their very nature; as these things make up the backbone of nearly all electromechanical subsystems, utilities are very well aware of how to deal with power factor problems.
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
I've replaced most of our bulbs with CFL, and in my experience they last about as long as incandescents. There's no way I'm saving money when the bulbs cost several times more than the incandescents. And I'm not using cheap junk, I'm using name brands like GE.
And if you use an X-10 system, you'll either have to stop using X-10 or buy even more expensive CFLs rated for use with dimmers.
No sig? Sigh...
Ok, I have a question about this - does the 'unused' power that got transported get looped back to be used again later?
I know real electric systems are very complex, but let me use a simple example to illustrate my question. So, I've got a small AC generator with two terminals, to which I connect a circuit which consists of a conductor to take the current from the generator, to one of these CFL bulbs, and another conductor to take the current back to the second terminal on the generator.
So, now, once this system is up and running at normal 'operating' current levels (that is, the generator has spun up, the lightbulb has lit up, and everything is in a sort of static state):
I assume what your statement means is that even though the equivalent of 28 Watts of power is moving through the light bulb, the amount of mechanical power I have to transfer into the generator to keep the system running is only the 13 watts that the bulb is actually consuming (plus any losses due to innefficiencies in the generator and conductors, but that should be relatively small in this simple scenario). That is because that power 'returns' to the generator, and because it does, not as much mechanical power is needed to keep the generator spinning at the proper speed.
Do I have that right?
Bully for you. But you have to be aware that there are different types of dimmers and different types of CFLs. Some work fine with all dimmers, some work fine only with certain dimmers. Since I don't know (and he likely doesn't either) the exact type of dimmer he has, the best way to avoid problems is to either use a dimmer designed for CFLs or a CFL designed to be dimmable.
All of the following text is from the reference provided:
[1]Newer dimmers are actually semiconductor devices that turn the switch on and off very rapidly - 120 times per second in normal designs. Because CFLs have a finite start-up time, and because frequent switching shortens bulb lifetime, these switches prevent the CFL from working optimally, and cause it to burn out quickly.
Manufacturers compensate for these problems by designing the power electronics within the ballast to deal with these issues. This requires more complicated and more expensive parts. Alternatively, you can design a special dimming switch for CFLs that put those power electronics before the switch rather than after it. This is more expensive, however, and requires a bigger retrofit.
Even with this "fix" there are expectations for dimmable products that need to be addressed.
[2] Do CFLs work on dimmers? Most screw-base CFLs do not work with dimmers designed for use with incandescent lamps. These CFLs will have a label on the lamp and/or the packaging stating "not for use with dimmers. However, certain special screw-base CFLs are designed to work with standard incandescent lamp dimmers. These CFLs will be labeled "dimmable" or similar language on the lamp and/or the packaging. However, due to small differences between different brands of dimmers, not all dimmable CFLs work with all types of incandescent dimmers. Some dimmable CFLs, however, will work with all major brands of incandescent lamp dimmers.
[3]Historically, incandescent dimmers worked through resistance- they lowered the voltage and the dimmer switch got hot, and the light bulb became very inefficient as low voltage barely warmed the filament. The bulb lasted forever but it used as much electricity as if it was running full blast.
Then the electronic dimmer was invented, which work by turning the light bulb on and off faster than we can see it, 120 times a second. It is not 100% efficient, which is why dimming your lights 25% reduces your electricity consumption only 20%. And it is no wonder why it causes problems for compact fluorescents, which are not designed for this additional turning on and off of a switch 120 times per second.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
This article has been up for quite a while and is a very thorough technical analysis for anyone interested:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
And, by the way, ther is no space between the sentence and the question mark.
There *is* an "e" at the end of the word "there", though ;-)
I bet "obarthelemy" is French. In French, there is a space before double punctuation signs (like ;:!?). AFAIK that's the only language in which that is the case. If you're interested, ISTR TeX and LaTeX documentation discussing the precise width of those spaces and other language-specific punctuation in some detail.
No, 28 VA == 28 W at 1.0 pf. Do you not understand that VA is the same units as a watt, and the notational difference is used to distinguish between real and apparent power?
And, no, your other appliances will not use the energy. You're thinking of bypass capacitors used to smooth out ripples. Appliances can't "steal" current on different phases. Where are you getting this line of reasoning?
No, 28 VA == 28 W at 1.0 pf. Do you not understand that VA is the same units as a watt, and the notational difference is used to distinguish between real and apparent power?
Uh... But we're not at 1.0pf.. We're 13W at .45 to .5 pf. Do you not understand what apparent power is? If we look at true power, 13W != 28W. My point is this 28VA is not at 1.0 PF and you can't view it as such. Under normal circumstances, the power company will adjust their generators/substations so that they "see" your 28VA load as 13W.
And, no, your other appliances will not use the energy. You're thinking of bypass capacitors used to smooth out ripples. Appliances can't "steal" current on different phases. Where are you getting this line of reasoning?
Didn't read the link either did you? I can rig up an LC filter which will reduce my VA to almost zero. My actual true power usage will be higher, but a VA meter will measure zero(or close to it). This is of course illegal in most places. Please remember conservation of energy, kirchoff's laws, etc. We use 13W true power at 28VA. The "difference" is "pushed" back into t
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Hmmm.. slashdot ate some of my comment.
The difference is pushed back into the supply. Inductors and capacitors store energy in case you didn't notice. My line of reasoning is to quite correctly view a home load as an RLC circuit with an AC input frequency. What is yours?
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Correct.
The normal formula for power is voltage times current. Now, for the sake of simplicity let us assume the voltage is 1V. This makes calculations for the currents easier.
The bulb consumes 13W, so you'd expect a current of 13A. However, the current ends up being 28A. You can think of it as if part of the time the CFL is acting as a generator. So instead of just consuming 13A, it consumes 42A half the time, and then produces 14A the other half. If you average 42 and 14, you get the 28A!
Now if the resistance of the conductors between the generator and the CFL are 0.001 ohm (round trip), the voltage loss will be 0.028V. Multiply this by the current and you have the power loss in the wires: 0.028V * 28A = .784W. If the current had only been 13A, the loss would've been 0.013V * 13A = 0.169W. As the electricity companies have to pay for the losses themselves, they like to ask you not to use devices that have such a low power factor. This costs them nothing.
The resistance of only 0.001 ohm is unrealistically low. Even for just a few feet of wiring. That is why we normally use a higher voltage.
Oops I made a small error in the example. Consumes 41A half the time, then produces 15A the other half. The current then comes to (41A+15A)/2 = 28A. The power comes to 1/2 * 41W + 1/2*-15W = 13W.
Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for the followup.